Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40035078›Full record

ArticleBladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2024

North American study and meta-analysis evaluating performance of Bladder EpiCheck

Neil Fleshner, Herbert Barton Grossman, Ryan Berglund, Jason Hafron, Brant Inman, Lawrence Karsh, Kelvin Moses, Daniel Saltzstein, Anup Shah, Jonathan Wright and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Role of Bladder EpiCheckJournal of translational medicine · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Neil FleshnerDivision of Urology, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Herbert Barton GrossmanRetired, Bellaire, TX, USA.
Ryan BerglundDivision of Urology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Jason HafronMichigan Institute of Urology, Troy, MI, USA.
Brant InmanDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Lawrence KarshThe Urology Center of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Kelvin MosesDivision of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Daniel SaltzsteinUrology San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Anup ShahChesapeake Urology, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jonathan WrightDepartment of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Johannes Alfred WitjesUrology Department, Radboud UMC, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Yair LotanDepartment of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Bladder EpiCheck (BE) is a novel methylation-based PCR urine test for the detection of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) recurrences. Objective: We present the results of a North American study evaluating BE and meta-analysis of literature. Methods: A prospective, blinded, multicenter study was conducted in North America. Voided urine was collected from NMIBC patients prior to cystoscopic surveillance. BE testing was performed centrally. For the meta-analysis, a PUBMED search was performed to identify all published peer-reviewed clinical studies of BE for NMIBC surveillance. Results: In this study, 674 patients were enrolled of which 449 were included. Overall sensitivity was 67% (95%CI 58%-74%), specificity was 84% (80%-88%), PPV was 65% (57%-73%) and NPV was 85% (81%-89%). For high-grade (HG) recurrence, sensitivity was 77% (65%-85%) and NPV was 95% (92%-97%).In patients with negative cystoscopy and cytology at the first study visit, risk of subsequent recurrence in 12 months was 5.3 (2.7-10.3) times higher in patients with positive BE vs. negative BE (p < 0.0001). In patients with negative cystoscopy and equivocal cytology, BE was positive in 75-89% of those with later HG recurrence, with PPV of 42% (15%-72%)-63% (38%-84%).The meta-analysis included 7 studies and 1564 patients. Overall sensitivity was 82% (66-92%), HG sensitivity was 91% (82-95%), specificity was 85% (80-88%), PPV was 60% (55-64%) and HG NPV was 98% (97-99%). Conclusions: The consistently strong performance of BE indicate that a positive test could improve timely disease recurrence detection and a negative test could rule-out HG disease. Furthermore, the low rate of false positive results, potentially minimizes unnecessary downstream procedures and patient anxiety.

Indexed as

biomarkerslocal [C04.697.655]neoplasm recurrencenon-muscle invasive bladder neoplasms [C04.588.945.947.960.500]non-muscle invasive bladder neoplasms [C12.900.820.945.500]real-Time polymerase chain reaction [E05.393.620.500.706]tumor [D23.101.140]urine [A12.207.927]

Identifiers

PMID40035078
PMCPMC11864238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.